Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli Throughout history, countless kingdoms have crumbled as a result of neglectful and inadequate ruling. Niccolo Machiavelli is one man who proposed a guide to avoid this fate when he dedicated his The Prince to Lorenzo de Medici. Machiavelli was certain that when applied, his guide would guarantee a prince’s success. Thomas Hobbes would not be as quick to call his Leviathan a “guide,” nor was his intent to suggest he knew what an ideal kingdom was. That being said, Hobbes’ proposed concept of nature between men connects to the topics discussed by Machiavelli in a number of ways.
This, hopefully would have resulted in him not killing Tybalt. People could argue that Romeo only killed Tybalt simply because of his bad temper. A reason to support the view stating Romeo is fortunes fool and this bad act was destined to happen is the fact that Romeo is a Montague and Tybalt is a Capulet. This shows us that Romeo was born into bad luck, as both the families had always been rivals. Romeo and Tybalt are unable to prevent being born into these families, stating Romeo and Tybalt only fought considering that they were both born into families which had forever been enemies making Romeo bound to have killed Tybalt, or death could have easily occurred the other way round.
I believe Creon displays all of the characteristics of a 'tragic hero'. He receives compassion through the audience, yet recognizes his weaknesses and his downfalls from his own self-pride, stubbornness, and controlling demands. This is quote told by Aristotle he explains who is a tragic hero “A tragic hero is a character who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice and depravity, but by some error or frailty…”(sparknoted/defintionoftrdigy.ca ) First of all Creon’s ego influenced his decisions once he came to power. He believed that a king owns the land and the people living there have to blindly follow the orders of the ruler. He passed a law that restrained anyone from burying his own nephew’s body.
Throughout this play, various characters claim that Old Hamlet was a superior king to Claudius in almost every way; however, Claudius soon depicts his remarkable facilities as a monarch and diplomat, discrediting these assertions. When the ghost of Old Hamlet begins to tell his son the tale of his downfall, he refers to Claudius as “a wretch whose natural gifts were poor/ To those of mine” (I.i.58-59). Yet, in the first scene of the play, Horatio mentions to Marcellus and Barnardo that Old Hamlet
Machiavelli connects a government’s ability to maintain liberty to the idea of sustaining glory throughout is reign. This glory is the key to the institutions longevity and helps guard against the destructive tendencies that can befall if corruption sets in. Governments undergo a cycle of degeneration that Machiavelli states as such; a principality will fall into a tyranny, an aristocracy will degrade into an oligarchy and lastly, a democracy will lead to anarchy. In his book The Discourses, Machiavelli acknowledges “…that all men are wicked and that they will always give vent to the malignity that is in their minds…” (The Discourses, page 112). This points to the fact that corruption in governments is an unavoidable occurrence, there can only be safe guards against it that will prolong the onset.
Connections in the texts such as the representation of Richard and his pursuit of power, notions of conscience and the use of language are indicative of the values in the respective societies. In Shakespeare’s text, Richard, one of Shakespeare’s most enigmatic and disturbing villains, outlines the consequences of separation from fellowship and God in a providential society. Shakespeare is critical of Richard’s individualistic nature; Richard lll enters ‘solus’ in the opening of the play that denotes his isolation. This concept derives from the end of 3HenryVI, “I am myself alone” and continues throughout The Tragedy of King Richard lll. In the opening soliloquy, he conspirers to the audience, further suggesting his isolation through the use of personal pronouns, “But I…I that am rudely
Destiny or fate versus free will –this is one of the many philosophies that William Shakespeare examines in Julius Caesar. The drama promotes the idea that fate and free will can survive side by side. Shakespeare allows the theme of fate and free will to wind its way into the assassination of one of the most famous people from ancient history. Cassius despises Caesar, alleging that Caesar is weak, womanish, and ill. Believing that he is just as deserving as Caesar, Cassius purports that there should be a return to a different attitude toward life: one that is more noble, self-determined, and unrelenting.
Cassius decides to write letters to Brutus that are seemingly written by many angry and bitter yet powerless citizens in an effort to make Brutus believe that killing Caesar is the right, even though not necessarily morally, action to take; as a result the thought of killing Caesar starts to appear as the honorable thing to do. Furthermore Shakespeare comments, “Three parts of him is ours already, and the man entire upon the next encounter yields him ours” (Julius Caesar 1.3.154-156). Cassius believes that they have accomplished in winning over Brutus to their side; therefore, Brutus hass nearly been completely persuaded to commit treason against Caesar. The conspirators
Ambition is a common downfall for those who seek power. In literature, authors use characters to demonstrate the harmful effects of ambition. Shakespeare, in his play Macbeth, develops the character of Macbeth, who changes from a good-hearted person to evil because of his corrupting power and unchecked ambition. In Act I, Macbeth debates with himself on whether or not to kill Duncan. He considers that, even if Duncan’s murder could be completed without any negative consequences, like getting caught, he still would have to live with guilt.
This also reveals another side of Brutus. By the use of the word ‘must’ it shows that Cassius has influenced Brutus into thinking in a vile manner. His is no more portrayed as the peaceful and honourable man that only thinks of the people. Brutus wants the killing of Caesar to look like he is going to kill Caesar for the public. This is shown by the use of the words “I know no personal cause to spurn at him, but for the General.” Brutus says that he is joining the conspiracy only for the people when in fact; Brutus is using this as an excuse to kill Caesar.